USAF Fund B-52 Engine Replacement
Thank you for that informative post, tdracer. It does underline the unforeseen risks of process changes.
Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that maintaining TF-33s for another 50 years is anywhere nearly challenging enough to justify the huge cost of engine replacement.
Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that maintaining TF-33s for another 50 years is anywhere nearly challenging enough to justify the huge cost of engine replacement.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer,
Check your pm...
TD
Some of the manufacturing processes and alloys used 70 years ago have been effectively banned due to EPA and OSHA regulations.
TD
The JDF is already using the E-767. Wouldn't that make a suitable replacement platform, especially since Boeing is allegedly planning to continue 767 production?
I would imagine a KC-46 variant (767 based) will be the preferred platform to offer over a civil based 767 as it is already hardened, miles of extra wiring....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Too big. Even if they didn’t go for a business jet they’d go for a P-3 variant - it already has a radar and it has already for provision f9r the appropriate consoles and comms etc.
In fact, that’s what Boeing has already selected and proposed.......
http://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/...-737-airliner/
In fact, that’s what Boeing has already selected and proposed.......
http://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/...-737-airliner/
737 'Wedgetail' already exists for the AWACS mission.
No need to re-invent the wheel - not that it would stop them from trying...
No need to re-invent the wheel - not that it would stop them from trying...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
given the continued apparent usefulness of the B-52 do you think they'd ever go for a replacement - a striaght sub-sonic, BIG, bomb truck that can carry just about anything you can think of?????
Or is it a bit like the fabled DC-3 replacement - so many built and available you could never get the price low enough to build a replacement??
given the continued apparent usefulness of the B-52 do you think they'd ever go for a replacement - a striaght sub-sonic, BIG, bomb truck that can carry just about anything you can think of?????
Or is it a bit like the fabled DC-3 replacement - so many built and available you could never get the price low enough to build a replacement??
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That being said, will it make sense to keep those airframes going, or just replace them with something new? Like a 767 AWACS? Or more likely a 737 based Wedgetail? Or maybe even something based on a large biz-jet. It'll depend a lot on how much processing they want to do on-board vs how much raw radar data they want to datalink and then process off-board. If they're willing to do very high bandwidth datalinking of raw radar data with off-board processing, then something un manned might do the job. But there's only so much available real-time bandwidth. The last thing they want to do is use up the bandwidth and end up constraining everything else that needs robust comms. So my guess is that they'll opt for on-board processing. Which likely also means on-board decision makers. Which would seem to favor something a bit bigger than the biz jets. Maybe a 100 seat airliner, like the Embraer E-195 and Bombardier CS-100? Boeing's betting that the bottom end of the 737 range is just right. Who knows?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
737 'Wedgetail' already exists for the AWACS mission.
No need to re-invent the wheel - not that it would stop them from trying...
No need to re-invent the wheel - not that it would stop them from trying...
We get back to the fact that even the 737 airframe is to big and a business jet would be more suitable.
We get back to the fact that even the 737 airframe is to big and a business jet would be more suitable.
The problem with distributed sensors/processing is it has to be 100% jam proof - and needs to stay that way indefinitely. If it's 99% jam proof you can be sure the 1% will happen at the worst possible time.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the really big issue is power generation. Biz jet engines and accessory gear box systems just are not designed to generate lots of power, and with active jamming, laser defense, laser offense, high power sensors, big on board processing systems, a robust comms suite, etc etc, the host aircraft needs to be able to generate LOTS of power. And finally, mission sets tend to creep upward, not downward. A bizjet based aircraft will likely not have a lot of growth margin. That's not to say that biz jets never make sense. Depending on the mission set and implementation, a biz jet may be ideal. But for the mission set of the current AWACS, you just couldn't cram all of the capability of that aircraft into a biz jet sized platform.
To put all this in perspective consider that the P-8 is based on the longer -800 airframe, not the shorter -700 airframe. And that's because the extra volume is needed. And the engines and nacelles of the P-8 have been modified with 180KVA generators. 360 kilowatts is a LOT of power. And when (not if) directed energy weapons start being fielded, they'll likely need to triple that power and get in the megawatt range.
While a 737/P-8 airframe size does seem to be what Boeing wants to pitch as the next AWACS, I do wonder if range/endurance wise something a KC-46/767, or even 787, sized airframe would be tempting especially for the USAF. 6,000 miles or 9+ hours endurance or so would be significant, especially when considering the Pacific basin. Yes I do realize there can be air-to-air refueling, but when you want endurance, internal space for racks and warm bodies (and spare crew), power, and external space for a large array, size does have a certain quality.
While Wedgetail, E-2, and bizjets work for many users the USAF might want to stay big.
While Wedgetail, E-2, and bizjets work for many users the USAF might want to stay big.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While a 737/P-8 airframe size does seem to be what Boeing wants to pitch as the next AWACS, I do wonder if range/endurance wise something a KC-46/767, or even 787, sized airframe would be tempting especially for the USAF. 6,000 miles or 9+ hours endurance or so would be significant, especially when considering the Pacific basin.
As an aside, I see that this thread has once again wandered far afield and no one is discussing B-52 engine replacement any more. So to bring things back, while the B-52 engine replacement will involve the installation of engines designed for biz-jets, the B-52 installation will include more and bigger generators. Today, only the lefthand engine of each two-engine pair has a generator. The new installation will include one generator for each engine (thus eight total generators) and each generator will be larger than the 45KVA generators now on the B-52.
Last edited by KenV; 10th Apr 2018 at 16:28.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a decision announced May 10, Boeing has been selected to serve as integrator for a program to install new commercial engines on the B-52 bomber. The Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) is the latest in a series of modernizations that will ensure the aircraft remains mission-ready through at least 2050. “The (U.S.) Air Force has long recognized that new engines are the right choice to carry the B-52 into the future,” said James Kroening, B-52 program manager. “The aircraft is structurally viable for years to come, and it’s the only large, heavy bomber of its type in the current and future fleet. We are very proud to have been selected as integrator and excited to partner with the Air Force as the CERP gets under way.”
It looks like USAF is genuinely serious about this engine replacement program for B-52 and putting the infrastructure in place to make it happen. The only thing lacking at this point is the funding. And if I read the tea leaves right Congress supports the program and will find and authorize the funds.
It looks like USAF is genuinely serious about this engine replacement program for B-52 and putting the infrastructure in place to make it happen. The only thing lacking at this point is the funding. And if I read the tea leaves right Congress supports the program and will find and authorize the funds.
It looks like USAF is genuinely serious about this engine replacement program for B-52 and putting the infrastructure in place to make it happen. The only thing lacking at this point is the funding. And if I read the tea leaves right Congress supports the program and will find and authorize the funds.
I do get that B-1 and B-2 bed down/phase out are part of the long term plans, but think the USAF and congress will need to get serious about that for funding and credibility sake. It will take some time to ensure the B-21's are up and running, but it looks like there will be period where FOUR bomber programs are up and running. That does get expensive.
I note here that Ellsworth, Dyess and Whiteman are likely slated to be the three B-21 bases, which seems like a natural transition of the types at those bases. Minot and Barksdale remain with the B-52. Air Force picks 3 bases for new B-21 Raider bomber - Business Insider The magic will be in the timing, and if/how many upgrades the B-1 and B-2 will need to keep them going. A slip is B-21 fielding could be costly in many ways, and doubt anyone wants a bomber gap at their base.
Program proceeding apace - final RFP end-March to Summer - selection by end-2020 - contract early-2021.
Interviews with P&W and G-E:
P&W would save 5,400 lbs on 8 x engines - in similar dimensions - and offer 40% range increase.
Interviews with P&W and G-E:
P&W would save 5,400 lbs on 8 x engines - in similar dimensions - and offer 40% range increase.
Original Boeing video from 2017 explaining the benefits of the re-engine program to keep in service beyond 2050:
TF33 overhaul cost in 1996 per engine was $230K - $2M by 2017.
New engines will not require a depot level overhaul at all during the projected life to 2050.
Overall savings of $10 Billion in engine operating costs to 2050.
TF33 overhaul cost in 1996 per engine was $230K - $2M by 2017.
New engines will not require a depot level overhaul at all during the projected life to 2050.
Overall savings of $10 Billion in engine operating costs to 2050.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...138099.article
US Air Force issues draft request for proposal to replace B-52 engines
US Air Force issues draft request for proposal to replace B-52 engines
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-rel...ted-july-2021/
USAF Releases B-52 Engine Replacement RFP, Award Expected July 2021
USAF Releases B-52 Engine Replacement RFP, Award Expected July 2021
It should have been done years ago